Oct-Dec 2005[edit]

Re: Paramilitary[edit]

I didnt really intend to put that piece of information in the extra-judicial section. Frankly, I didnt devote much time reading that section and thought that it refered to paramilitary units w/ extra-judicial powers blah blah :). Thanks for correcting my terrible mistake --{{IncMan|talk}} 19:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New European Union collaboration[edit]

Hi Red King, this is just a note telling you that I have created the European Union collaboration (the first collaboration is Eurobarometer). I'm looking forward to your contributions! Talrias (t | e | c) 12:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of Ireland[edit]

Hows it going Red King (if that is your real name!). Could you do me a favour and clean up the intro to the History of Ireland page? I tried to do it, but my browser is not advanced enough to edit an article of that size without losing the end of it. I usually just edit in sections to get around this. Anyway, if you could you just clean up the links where it refers to wars in 17th century Ireland, - change Nine Years War to Nine Years War (Ireland), change "Cromwellian wars" to Irish Confederate Wars or Cromwellian conquest of Ireland and Glorious Revolution to Williamite war in Ireland, I would be very grateful. I think we could also delete the reference to the plantaion of Ulster, but I'll leave that up to your discretion. Cheers Jdorney 18:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi--just responding to your message on my talk page. What's the eventual goal for trimming down the intro? One paragraph? Two? I'm willing to take a crack at condensed summary of the whole section, if it won't ruffle feathers. Dppowell 00:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll attempt to write a condensed version of the entire intro. I probably won't get to this until after the holidays, but I think I can do something good with it.Dppowell 01:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual assault on an innocent crustacean[edit]

I thought that was sort of amusing, actually (looking at the diff), though I can see why you didn't welcome it! (I seem to still have your talk page on my watchlist from the last time we were corresponding).

You haven't put the IRA on RfM yet have you? If not, I'd encourage you to do so, in fact I'd nearly do it myself now only I'm suffering from a peculiar inability to keep myself logged in today, despite fiddling with the cookie settings. Palmiro, 15:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I offer my apology to Red King for implying a Sexual assault on an innocent crustacean. It's his page, and I should have left it alone. In mitigation of the offence, there was no malice and I had nothing better to do. O Lord, I withdraw into my shell and pray for mercy.--shtove 21:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Crustacean Front for the Liberation of Crustacea, you endoskeletal deviationist! Anyway, you may or may not have views to offer on the bright shiny new Template_talk:IRAs, fresh today courtesy of Damac. Palmiro | Talk 22:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And now someone has made off with the crab (note: not "made out").--80.4.252.22 17:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a publicity stunt by the Provisional Claw of the movement. Normal service is returned if you watch and wait, lads, watch and wait. --Red King 22:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Modding[edit]

I found this page because of a question in the general help area, then I added some stuff myself, because much of my IT career has been in the legal modifying of licensed derivative software, and my employers have been involved in the modifying of hardware that many people might not associate with the notion of modifying.

I also enjoy simulation games, have both designed some of my own, and modified others, where it was my understanding that modifying was an entirely approved activity by the game publisher. I have also been involved in the organization of games conventions, where I have discovered that different game companies have totally different notions of what is an approved use of their games.

Then I took a look at prior editors and thought I would give y"all a heads up that I had made some mods to this article on mods to try to clarify notions of where this is a very bad thing to do vs. ho hum so mundane as to be no question but that it is perfectly legitimate activity. AlMac|^(talk) 21:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of Ireland[edit]

Thanks ... I think! Sacred text? Fergananim 18:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's okay. I have no problem with my stuff being revised or moved around (you would'nt want to here!), just so long as someone explains why. I know that the stuff I do is probably too detailed, but I just LOVE depth! Thanks again! Fergananim 17:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howya Red King, sorry it took me so long to respond. Had a look at the article and think its ok Jdorney

Thanks for the 'Ireland' and UK name story. Politis 11:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic cleansing[edit]

Thank you for your detailed comments. Basically I follow you entirely. I calculated my sentence would have a short life, and be deleted by LP. Most European countries are still having great difficulty reconciling themselves with their past, particularly where certain events are painfully true. That is a section of our history were outside researchers could be of great service (of the Peter Hart kind). One major EU country at least, is being surprisingly exemplary in revealing and exposing its horrid past.

In 1920 we had a 20% prodestant population in the south, now 4%. That is not saying they were all hounded out of the country. It is certainly more complex. But what I said did occur for a short period. Why differentiate between prodestants, loyalist and unionist?. Are particular words sacredly reserved for certain single historical occurances only ?

We have yet to relearn to mingle and live together on this small island. But in order to understand where we are today we have to look at the unpleasant roots, pasts and actions of our mollies, hibernians, orangemen, and so forth (who subsequently donned more elitist titles).

I will choose appropriate acceptable wording at a later date, Presently I have been, and am still moving around countries, but from Dec. on expect to be more present. After I complete some pending new pages (have only done an outline of the "Munsters"), I will be devoting more time to the Nationalist period, and attending to balance elsewhere. Appreciating your engagement Osioni 22:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IRA[edit]

Did you, or anyone else, make a request to move for Irish Republican Army?

Lapsed Pacifist 16:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Just looking at your last comment on Talk:Irish Republican Army: "even though there appears to be about five in favour with one opposed at this stage, I presume we need to do a formal Request to Move. Given the months of debate, it would be unreasonable to just hit the Move tab." That was six weeks ago. What exactly are you against?

Lapsed Pacifist 15:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the process of making a request to move. Unless you want to kick it off, can you point me in the right direction?

Lapsed Pacifist 02:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Santa Pudenziana[edit]

For the most part your comments on the Talk page were spot on, but I wouldn't have used the word "fantasy" to describe the Palatium Britannicum. I believe that WikiRat has shown himself to be contributing in good faith, & has been hurt over his contributions about Christian history from the grey edges of tradition, like this one. (Celtic Christianity is another topic he has been fighting over, & from various comments on the associated talk page, I suspect that there is a New Age variant take on this extinct phase in Christian history that is important enough to be allowed it's two cents on Wikipedia.) Obviously the Palatium Britannicum belongs in the same category as the Bermuda Triangle, many accounts of UFOs, & countless allegations made by Fox News -- but to dismiss them as fantasy when it can be shown millions of people honestly believe one or all of them is but to drive them underground where they grow like fungi, instead of bringing them into the sunlight where we can critically study them & clean the superstition from them. But that's just my long-winded opinion. -- llywrch 21:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Adams[edit]

You might like to take a look at this. I think it could probably do with a bit of work, but I don't have the sources. Palmiro | Talk 19:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd encourage you togive your view regarding the intro, dispute over which has resulted in a polite but total impasse between me and another user. Palmiro | Talk 23:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's my view too. Palmiro | Talk 00:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your remarks. I was beginning to think that I was the only one who thought this way. I am not European, and feel that I could give a 'neutral' perspecitive. But it seemed that there was no desire for one. I immediately came in for personal attacks and of course wrong assumptions. My previous edit history was well intentioned, but there are better ways to achieve the same result, ie, knowing how to play the game - and it is sometimes a game. I would be happy enough to see Gerry Adams and the others on the republican side portrayed as saints, if Ian Paisley and the unionist were also portayed as saints. I am actually unhappier about the Ian Paisley article than the Gerry Adams one. The Ian Paisley one is very critical of him. I do like to see the best in everyone. Denigrating one side or the other is never helpful. Wallie 07:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

depth of Eurobond markets[edit]

Hi Red King. You put a comment on my talk page that makes me wonder if you actually meant to contact someone else. (The edit I made was to simply fix a faulty edit.) Cheers, --A bit iffy 00:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: Provisional Sinn Féin[edit]

Yeah not bad, I made a couple of minor changes though. I changed refuses with to does not, as refuses, at least to me, implies that officially they are to use the term Provisional but they don't on certain grounds, which is not made apparent in the article (both the PSF and SF articles) if true, which i don't believe it is. I also removed "and need not be repeated here.", it just didn't sound right anyway their has to be a better way of adding that sentence. The only other change i would make, i decided not to go threw on it, is the removal of the section on their political achievements, basically everything after the first paragraph in the Modern Sinn Féin section, until the trivia section. I think that the information more suited in the Sinn Féin article. I would not be surprised though to see a more radical changes, their have been at least one if not several RSF persons making some interesting edits to articles. Feel free to revert my changes if you don't find them acceptable. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to help. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 23:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Collins[edit]

Actually the claims about Collins's homosexuality or bisexuality is not conjecture. It had been a longstanding debate. Harris openly talked about the issue on the Late Late Show on a number of occasions. It has featured in newspaper columns for years, and has been commented on by Tim Pat Coogan among others. I first heard the story in history lectures in UCD in 1985. All the section does is contextualise a widely repeated rumour. There was a high level of homosexual activity (primarily oral sex it appears) in the Irish Republican Army in 1919-1921 according to state papers. Why remains a mystery. One suggestion from psychiatrists is that those in units developed emotional relationships with each other, while having to cut themselves off from society lest they let slip secrets or their women-folk either betray them or be targeted for torture by the Black and Tans and Auxiliaries. So they expressed themselves sexually with men they had bonded with in their units. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The claims were not made by the British. They were made by Free Staters in 1922 initially. It was his own side who suggested it. And the fact that a film script was going to feature it, that Collins's right hand man Emmet Dalton was widely rumoured to be his lover, and that the allegations have often been discussed by historians requires that the story be covered. Nor is your or my personal view of Harris at all relevant. If someone of the stature of Harris claims it ipso facto it is relevant. Personally I don't believe it, but to ignore it would breach NPOV. So there is no question of deleting it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The user had been jumping IPs to vandalise articles. They vandalised a large number over the last couple of days. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of Ireland[edit]

How do you think the article is coming along? I still think its far too big, given that we now have plenty of sub articles. Would you agree with me that it could be cut further? Also, I have created new articles Early Modern Ireland 1536-1691 and Ireland 1691-1801. Would you mind having a look at them and maybe sticking them in the history of Ireland template (I don't know hoe to do this)? Cheers, Jdorney 13:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Ireland[edit]

I've suggested re-naming this article Norman Ireland on its talk page. What do you think? Jdorney 13:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Democrats & Sinn Fein[edit]

It is hard to see your justification in claiming that the PDs can claim a link to Sinn Fein, as the were only formed 20 years ago, and your reason of because they split from FF is nonsense, FF didn't split from SF as your trying to imply, Dev resigned from Sinn Fein and only later decided to form a new party a few months later.--Padraig3uk 09:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sinn Fein, -> Pro-Treaty Sinn Fein -> reforms Cumann na nGael ->(1933 merger with The BlueShirts and National Centre Party to form Fine Gael                              
          -> Anti-Treaty Sinn Fein  (retains the name and party structure)
                           -> (Dev Valera Resigns) later forms Fianna Fail (1926-
                           -> (breakaway)(1970 Sinn Fein 'Gardiner Place'/'offical' Sinn Fein-> SF - The Workers Party->The Workers Party                                                                                             
                                                    -> (breakaway) IRSP
                                                    -> (breakaway) New Agenda -> Democratic Left->merger with Labour Party
                           -> (breakaway 1986) Republican Sinn Fein
                           -> (breakaway over the GFA) 199?) 32CSM

You seem to have very little understanding of History or the workings of Sinn Fein and its rules and constitution, but if you want to include mythology rather then the true facts then carry on with your own version of history.--Padraig3uk 20:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said the officals walked out, they were in breach of the constitution by trying to impose a defeated motion on the membership at the Ard Fheis, by their actions they were deemed to be expelled from the party in accordance with the rules and constitution of the party. RSF on the other hand failed to gather enough support to stopped the motion being passed in accordance with the rules and constitution of Sinn Fein, they then refused to accept the ruling of the Ard Fheis and walked out, and because they setup a rival organisation were deemed to have resigned from Sinn Fein. Red because the facts don't suit your own POV and bias against Sinn Fein, that dosen't make your version of what you want to believe true.--Padraig3uk 01:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The euro and the greek drachma[edit]

I did not know this. — Hurricane Devon ( Talk ) 13:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sinn Fein[edit]

The Northern Ireland political parties is a subcategory of Political parties in the United Kingdom. Therefore all the political parties of Northern Ireland (and of England, Scotland and Wales, too) are also political parties in the United Kingdom.

Bye! --Palomar 08:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]